Citation Nr: 0616551
Decision Date: 06/07/06 Archive Date: 06/13/06
DOCKET NO. 03-12 819 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Roanoke,
Virginia
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD).
2. Entitlement to a total rating by reason of individual
unemployability due to service connected disabilities.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Virginia Department of Veterans
Affairs
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
Joseph P. Gervasio, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran served on active duty from August 1973 to May
1974.
This case comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on
appeal of a rating decision of the Roanoke, Virginia,
Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA).
The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management
Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify you if
further action is required on your part.
REMAND
The veteran is claiming service connection for PTSD as the
result of abuse to which he claims that he was subjected
during basic training in 1973. In support of this claim, a
VA outpatient treatment report shows an impression of
probable PTSD, with the examiner expressing some uncertainty
with the impression. The claims file does not appear to have
been available to the examiner for review prior to the
examination. The stressors given by the veteran are not
combat related such that some verification is necessary. See
Zarycki v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 91 (1993); West v. Brown, 7
Vet. App. 70 (1994); Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128 153
(1997). Under these circumstances, additional development is
necessary. The matter relating to a total rating by reason
of individual unemployability due to service connected
disabilities must be held in abeyance pending the resolution
of this matter.
Furthermore, other records on file suggest other diagnoses,
to include personality disorder. In order to provide for
reconciliation of the diagnoses and afford the appellant
every opportunity to sustain his claim, additional
examination with review of the claims folder is indicated.
In addition, additional notification and development pursuant
to Dingess/Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006)
should be undertaken while the case is in remand status.
Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:
1. The RO should request from the veteran a
statement containing as much detail as
possible regarding the stressors to
which he was exposed during service.
The veteran should be asked to provide
specific details of the claimed
stressful events during service, such as
dates, places, detailed descriptions of
the events, duty assignments and the
names and other identifying information
concerning any individuals involved in
the events. It should be indicated
whether any investigation of the matter
was accomplished. The veteran should be
told that the information is necessary
to obtain supportive evidence of the
stressful events and that failure to
respond may result in adverse action.
He should also identify other who might
provide additional support for his
claim. He should also be requested to
identify any psychiatric treatment
rendered to him since service, and
records should be sought to the extent
not all ready done. He should also be
provided with specific notice as
required by Dingess.
2. The RO should forward the veteran's
statement and prior statements of
alleged service stressors (along with
copies of his service personnel records
and any other relevant evidence) to U.S.
Army and Joint Services Records Research
Center (JSRRC), or other appropriate
authority as indicated for any possible
verification. The organization should
be requested to provide any information
available which might corroborate the
veteran's alleged stressors and any
other sources that may have pertinent
information.
3. Thereafter, and whether a stressor is
found or not, a VA psychiatric
examination should be conducted by a
psychiatrist, who has not examined him,
in order to determine the etiology,
nature, and severity of any psychiatric
illness, to include PTSD. A
reconciliation of diagnoses should be
made to ascertain if there is acquired
psychiatric pathology or just a
personality disorder present. The
claims folder must to be made available
to the examiner in conjunction with the
examination. All indicated tests are to
be conducted.
If the diagnosis of post-traumatic
stress disorder is deemed appropriate,
the examiner should specify whether
each stressor found to be established
by the record was sufficient to produce
the post-traumatic stress disorder, and
whether there is a link between the
current symptomatology and one or more
of the in-service stressors. A
complete rational of any opinion
expressed should be included in the
examination report.
4. Thereafter, the RO should
readjudicate the veteran's claims.
If the benefit sought on appeal
remains denied, the veteran and his
representative should be provided a
supplemental statement of the case
(SSOC). The SSOC must contain notice
of all relevant actions taken on the
claim for benefits, to include a
summary of the evidence and
applicable law and regulations
considered pertinent to the issue
currently on appeal. An appropriate
period of time should be allowed for
response.
The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and
argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded.
Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law
requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of
Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court
of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or
other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious
manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2005).
_________________________________________________
MICHAEL D. LYON
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the
nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a
decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal.
38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2004).